If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

"it violates the fundamental norm of our elites, which is everything is negotiable."

Including our liberty, our Constitution and even the country.

We are not going to win as a free people until we return Washington to it's Constitutionally defined limitations.

Notice that statement is the foundation for the existence of our present day State Department, if Im not mistaken. To hell with what is in our nations best interest in the final analysis. The dont want black and white. They want "grey". So that they can "negotiate" ... "everything".

Nidal Hasan is an American citizen. He also had a security clearance because the FBI was too PC to investigate him when he was trading e-mails with a jihadi cleric, lecturing his peers on the merits of terrorists and suicide bombers and otherwise setting himself as the poster child for jihad. The point is that we vet everyone, no matter what. Huma Abedin's close familial ties to members of the Muslim Brotherhood should have set of all sorts of alarm bells when she was appointed to the State Department, and if they didn't, then we have a serious problem. OTOH, if she was vetted and passed, then the agencies just have to say that and we're done. However, Bachmann had every right to ask the questions, and the hysterically outraged response tells me that there may be something to her concerns.

the hysterically outraged response is yet another full-blown example of how PC has infested our logic, our rationale, and our methodologies. Based on this, we're really not that far away from dhimmiland.

Or maybe we can just become another colony of Great Britain again. They have PC for jihadis and muzzies down to a science.

Andrew McCarthy, former the US Attorney who prosecuted the blind sheikh for the first WTC bombing, puts this in perspective at PJ Media:

Here are two salient facts. Once you grasp them, you’ll know everything you need to know to understand the rest of the dispute:

(a) Not all Islamic supremacists (or “Islamists”) are violent, but the goal of all Islamic supremacists is the same: to coerce the acceptance of sharia. The methods of pursuing that goal vary: sometimes terrorism is used, sometimes non-violent avenues are exploited — meaning, Islamic supremacists co-opt legal processes, the media, educational institutions, and/or government agencies. But regardless of what methods an Islamic supremacist uses, his goal never changes: He aims to implement sharia. In Islamic supremacist ideology, sharia is regarded as the mandatory, non-negotiable foundation that must be laid before a society can be Islamized. Sharia is not “moderate”; therefore, you are not a “moderate” if you want it, no matter what method you use to implement it. For example, if you are an Islamic supremacist and you want to repeal the First Amendment in order to prohibit speech that casts Islam in a negative light, you are not a “moderate” — even if you wouldn’t blow up buildings to press your point.

(b) Islamic supremacism is not a fringe interpretation of Islam. It is probably still the minority interpretation in North America. Nevertheless, it is the predominant interpretation of Islam in the Middle East. Poll after poll shows us that upwards of two-thirds of Muslims in countries like Egypt and Pakistan want their governments to adopt and strictly enforce sharia. This is why the Islamic supremacist parties in the “Arab Spring” countries are currently enjoying such success in elections

With that as background, understand that in the aforementioned 1995 trial, we proved that the reason the Blind Sheikh was able to run a terrorist organization — despite the fact that his physical infirmities rendered him incapable of performing any physical acts that would be useful to terrorists — was his globally renowned mastery of Islamic law. Omar Abdel Rahman is not a nut suffering from a psychological disorder. He has a doctorate in Islamic jurisprudence, earned by graduating with distinction from al-Azhar University in Cairo, the legendary seat of sharia scholarship since the Tenth Century. When he preached that Muslims were obligated to force non-sharia governments to adopt sharia, by terrorism if necessary, he drew these instructions directly from Islamic scripture, and his instructions had extraordinary persuasive force precisely because he was, undeniably, an internationally recognized authority on Islamic jurisprudence. The government would have you to believe Barack Obama or George Bush or Hillary Clinton or John McCain or Condi Rice or Janet Reno knows more about Islam and its sharia than Omar Abdel Rahman does. That is ludicrous.

We seemed to get that 20 years ago, but observe the measure of how far off-course we’ve drifted:

(a) In 1995, we demonstrated that (i) the Blind Sheikh was attempting to impose sharia, (ii) that he drew directly and accurately from Islamic scripture his instructions that Muslims must impose sharia, by violence if necessary, and (iii) his Muslim followers were animated by these instructions to push for the imposition of sharia standards, using terrorist attacks, among other methods. That was the crux our our case. For proving this in federal court, the Clinton Justice Department honored my colleagues and me with the attorney general’s highest award.

(b) Today, by contrast, for doing exactly the same thing — namely, for arguing that an authoritative interpretation of Islam directs adherents to impose sharia, by violence if necessary, in order to lay the groundwork for changing a non-Islamic society into an Islamic society — I am routinely accused of promoting hatred and “Islamophobia.” Such accusations, applied to assertions of what used to be seen as fact, do not come only from the Obama Left (including its Clinton administration veterans — the State Department, run by Hillary Clinton, and the Justice Department run by Eric Holder, Clinton’s deputy attorney general). The smears are echoed, and in many cases led, by prominent members of the Republican establishment.

I haven’t changed. The threat against us hasn’t changed. The government has changed.

The Obama administration and the Republican establishment would have us live a lie — a lie that endangers our liberties and our security. The lie is this: There is a difference between mainstream Islamic ideology and what they call “violent extremism.”

The vogue term “violent extremism” is chosen very deliberately. To be sure, we’ve always bent over backwards to be politically correct. Until Obama came to power, we used to use terms like “violent jihadism” or “Islamic extremism” in order to make sure everyone knew that we were not condemning all of Islam, that we were distinguishing Muslim terrorists from other Muslims. (In a more sensible time, we did not say “German Nazis” — we said “Germans” or “Nazis” and put the burden on non-Nazi Germans, rather than on ourselves, to separate themselves from the aggressors.) But now, the Obama administration and the Republican establishment prefer to say “violent extremism” because this term has no hint of Islam.

According to the Obama Left and the Republican establishment (personified today by the likes of Sen. John McCain and many, but by no means all, former high-ranking officials from the Bush 43 administration), the only Muslims we need to be concerned about are terrorists, and there is nothing relevant in the fact that they happen to be Muslims. “Violent extremists” are not motivated by a coherent ideology, much less by scriptures from “one of the world’s great religions.” Instead, they are seized by a psychological disorder that inexplicably makes them prone to mass-murder attacks.

The fall-out from this line of thinking is that we must conclude mainstream Islam, everywhere on earth including the Middle East, has nothing to do with violence, and therefore, it is “moderate,” and even “admirable.” Sure, it may be advocating the adoption of something called “sharia,” but we needn’t worry about that. After all, we have Western scholars of Islamic studies (mostly working in university departments created by lavish donations from Saudi royals) who will tell you that sharia is amorphous and evolving — such that nobody really knows exactly what it is, anyway. Consequently, nothing to see here, move along. You are to accept as an article of faith that there is no reason to believe people steeped in mainstream Islam will resist real democracy or that they will remain hostile to the United States. And, yeah, sure they are opposed to Israel, but that is just a “political dispute” about “territory”; it has nothing to do with ideology or mainstream Islam per se.

He goes on at length about the nature of the threat from the Muslim Brotherhood, but the critical point is that anyone associated with it is an enemy of the west, in general, and the United States, specifically. If Huma Abedin is associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, then she should not be associated with our State Department.

As I reported earlier today, there are tensions between allies of Representative Michele Bachmann and several top Republicans, including Speaker John Boehner.

All week, conservative talk-radio hosts have buzzed about Bachmann being under fire from party leaders for this letter about Huma Abedin and the Muslim Brotherhood. GOP leadership aides, for their part, have strenuously denied that Boehner threatened Bachmann with losing her intelligence-committee seat, or in any other way.

But in a conversation today, a source close to Bachmann told me that the real tension is not between Boehner and Bachmann but between Bachmann and Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan, the chairman of the intelligence committee. Per the source, Boehner has stayed out of the fray, and has not exerted any private pressure. But late last week, Rogers met with Bachmann. There are different accounts of the meeting. In one account, Rogers just urged her to publicly clarify her comments. A source in the Bachmann camp says he urged her to apologize.

Mark Levin just reported on this. He said that he was told (he could not give his source because they had not given permission) that Bachmann was in fact threatened with losing her intelligence committee seat, even though this article (which he quotes) says otherwise. We are in bigger trouble than we imagined. Even the RINO leadership is siding against us.

Rep. Michele Bachmann's allegations about a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton apparently did not prevent her from raking in some serious campaign cash.

The Minnesota Republican raised more than $1 million in 25 days during July, she announced today on Twitter.

Bachmann's haul came as she made headlines this month as one of five lawmakers calling for an investigation of alleged ties to Islamic extremists within the federal government. The GOP lawmakers had singled out Huma Abedin, Clinton's Muslim-American deputy chief of staff.

"I am so grateful to my generous and faithful supporters," Bachmann said in her tweet.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., House Speaker John Boehner and Ed Rollins, who managed Bachmann's presidential campaign, were among those who defended Abedin and her patriotism.

Bachmann has said the call for an investigation has been misconstrued. She said she and five GOP colleagues asked "for answers to questions regarding the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical group's access to top Obama administration officials."

From what I understand...the distortion came from a letter that Keith Ellison wrote...and some how made it appear that the smears about Houma had come from the 5 Republicans who had made the initial inquiry.

From what I understand...the distortion came from a letter that Keith Ellison wrote...and some how made it appear that the smears about Houma had come from the 5 Republicans who had made the initial inquiry.

Despite the fact that some of them speak like field hands, can we not expect that these allegedly educated people are responsible for going into the discussing at least reasonably informed?

Sorry, this can't be lain at the feet of some jackass like Ellison- this to too pervasive and deliberate. It's right in there with people who insist on calling illegal aliens "undocumented immigrants", referring to SYG as "shoot first laws", and characterizing any intent to maintain the integrity of the American nation as racist, ethnocentric, or xenophobic.

Two weeks ago, I wrote about the handful of House Republicans, led by Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, who sent letters in June to inspectors general at five government departments, asking them to investigate evidence of Muslim Brotherhood influence on U.S. government policymaking. The Muslim Brotherhood is a global Islamic movement engaged, according to the group's own internal document, on a "grand jihad" in North America to destroy "Western civilization from within." To date, the inspectors general haven't responded.

Nonetheless, Bachmann and her colleagues -- Trent Franks of Arizona, Louie Gohmert of Texas, Tom Rooney of Florida and Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia -- have focused attention on the disastrous policy of bringing members of known Muslim Brotherhood fronts and their associates into Uncle Sam's policymaking chain. The representatives' letters went to inspectors general at State, Justice, Defense, Homeland Security and the Office of the National Intelligence Director. These government nerve centers are increasingly advancing policies American leaders once would have excoriated for supporting the enemies of this country.

Is it by chance, for example, that director of national intelligence James Clapper, reading from prepared notes, absurdly described the Muslim Brotherhood to the House Intelligence Committee last year as a "largely secular" organization? Is it an accident that in June the State Department issued a visa to Hani Nour Eldin of Egypt to meet with senior White House officials? Eldin is a member of Gama'a al-Islamiyya, a terrorist organization once led by Omar Abdel Rahman, "the blind sheikh" convicted of the first attack on the World Trade Center. In the person of Rahman's successor, Refai Ahmed Taha, the group is one of the five signatories of Osama bin Laden's February 1998 "World Islamic Front Statement Urging Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders." Isn't it imperative to review the policy mechanism that permitted a member of bin Laden's jihad front into the White House?

According to our elected officials, the answer is no. Not one House member, Democrat, Republican or tea party, has come out in solidarity with the National Security Five. Typically, the mainstream media have reacted not by digging up facts themselves (what are they, journalists?), but rather by throwing mud on Michele Bachmann. "Stop 'witch-hunting' Huma Abedin, top aide to Hillary Clinton," is the war cry from CNN to USA Today. Many conservative outlets, such as Fox and The Washington Examiner, are strangely silent.

To be sure, one of the Bachmann letters notes the case of Huma Abedin -- a confidante of the secretary of state whose family has dense ties to Muslim Brotherhood organizations. She has become the human face used to distract from the overarching national security issue. Honest answers to the wide array of questions the House members have asked would expose high elected officials in both parties as dupes of our enemies, at best. The American people would find out how Uncle Sam came to support al-Qaida in Libya; Muslim Brothers in Egypt; and, now, al-Qaida and Muslim Brothers in Syria. An honest investigation would spotlight the internal process that led Uncle Sam to sponsor a new international counterterrorism organization without Israel. The shameful fact is, our power-elites don't want these questions answered because the answers would threaten their hold on power.

Bachmann & Co. haven't alleged wrongdoing on Abedin's part. Rather, their question turns on the process that permitted a person with close family ties to an array of world Islamic movements and figures hostile to the United States to gain the security clearance Abedin requires to serve alongside the secretary of state.

I looked over the lengthy Form 86 that federal employees fill out to apply for national security positions. One portion is devoted to an applicant's relatives, with a question about relatives' affiliations with any "foreign movement." If Abedin answered fully -- and there are stiff penalties for failing to do so -- she would have noted, for starters, that her mother, Saleha Abedin, belongs to the Muslim Sisterhood (the Brotherhood's auxiliary, primarily for relatives of prominent Brothers) and serves on the board of the International Islamic Council for Dawah and Relief, a group banned in Israel for supporting Hamas. Saleha Abedin has been a representative of the Muslim World League, whose affiliates have been charged by the U.S. government with funding terrorism. Any ensuing investigation would turn up Saleha's work with the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, where she edits the journal that Huma, too, worked on for a dozen years. That same institute was founded by Huma's father in Saudi Arabia with the assistance and long-term involvement of Abdullah Omar Naseef. Naseef was secretary-general of the Muslim World League and also founded the Rabita Trust, a U.S.-designated international terrorist organization with ties to al-Qaida.

There's more, but just imagine the light dawning on the background-checker: So, Ms. Abedin, let me get this straight: Your folks, and you, too, worked with a guy who founded a terrorist organization linked to al-Qaida, your mom's on the board of a group banned in Israel for supporting Hamas, and you want top-secret clearance to work for the secretary of state.

The Muslim Brotherhood are the new Nazis of the twenty-first century and should be treated as such. Their tentacles of influence and evil are silently spreading everywhere. We ignore this at our own peril.